The purpose of this movement is to channel the frustrations of America (deemed the 99%) into a plan of action to return Democracy and the power of the people to their government. It is our hope that Congress will simply submit to our demands. Some may, some certainly will not. It is important for the people to realize that they are ALL represented.

The media, especially corporate propaganda machines like Fox News, will be quick to paint as partisan if we wander from the Center. If we stray then Susie Housemaker will say "I agree except I don't want drugs legal! They don't represent me or my neighbors! They aren't the 99%. They are frauds and can't be trusted!"

As it is Healthcare is our third rail. It is predominantly a Democrat ideal, but it's also favored I believe by the 99%. Of course the Convention will finalize these things.

MY POINT IS we need to keep this truth in mind. People keep talking about being a third party I think with a hope to get their pet legislation in there, for instance, but that is not the center. The third party, if it comes to be, is NON PARTISAN. It is something that EVERY American can rally behind. It MUST BE this way or else there will not be enough voting power to push out the corporate owned candidates.

Anyone whispering Partisan Politics to you is intentionally subverting us or unintentionally, well meaningly subverting us. The goal is the same.

Can we work on those issues? Not now. Not for a long time.

The only way I see that happening is AFTER we get the corporations long out and the media honest then the people will be able to actually talk about and vote on the more controversial matters without divisive politics tearing the nation apart. At that point, if we are a party and still around, we can spearhead the talking of these matters knowing that a People Democracy will listen and decide fairly and justly.

Anything earlier than that and it's a private agenda and we must be watchful against such things.

I think there is a real point there. That said:the center of US politics tends to be exactly where the money tends to be most generously applied because it is ultimately the center that makes the deciding votes between opposing sides.

What is most interesting to me personally is when we have topics where the far right and fair left tend to agree-and both get shouted down by a corrupt center.

Two examples that come to mind:Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the most vocal opponents to the US fighting wars. All the mainstream media can do is attempt to paint them as "nutty".

H-1b visa expansion. The US senate voted for that 96-1(3 abstention) after enormous application of hundreds of millions of dollars to reps that often had no idea what they were actually voting for. The folks that actually did speak out about it were Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo. Again, it was the far right and the far left that were the ones that didn't get bought off.

I would encourage folks to try to really understand both issues-and try to come up with a tone of compromise-but it doesn't have to be the same kind of compromise as the corrupt center is coming up with.

Before we can resolve to remain in the center, we have to define center. Many Americans self-define as conservative but when asked about specific issues they prefer progressive solutions. Frankly, I think the left is the center. Maybe we should act like it.

Left, right, center, all arbitrary definitions easily distorted. We just have to be clear about what it is we are doing here, what motivated us. The central theme for everyone is the extreme division between the elite 1% who control most of the wealth and the other 99% whose wealth has been extracted from them by policies that benefit the 1%. That means we focus on the the economic policies that allowed this to happen. This approach is based on FACTS NOT OPINIONS, what actually has and is occurring, not what we think about it.

FACT: The uber rich banking cartel and corporations have hijacked the political system and used it to devise legislation that allows them to gamble with toxic debt instruments that have infected the entire world.

FACT: One of the main means of insuring their success has been the central banks headed by the Federal Reserve that has co-opted the Constitutional mandate declaring only Congress via the U.S. Treasury shall be the creator of money. The Federal Reserve Act of 1931 was pushed illegally through Congress without a proper quorum in order for the banks to gain control of the money creation system, whereby the U.S. Treasury procures its money from the banks as a loan. The loan is repaid with interest by our federal taxes.

Fact: The fiat money system based on debt, and its delivery through fractional banking, which allows debt to compound and create further debt, is a vast Ponzi scheme that never takes into account the interest owed on the debts created, which can never be repaid as there will never be enough money to do so.

FACT: Federal income tax on the income of human beings is unconstitutional. The Federal government was never meant to deal directly with human beings except through the states wherein they resided. The federal government was to be funded primarily by an apportioned tax directed at the state level.

It has been a great scam by the central banks and we grew up with it so we do not see it nor understand it. The propaganda has been hugely successful in this regard.

The above facts are most crucial in the ongoing discussion if there is any possibility of creating change. We have to go for the root, not make cosmetic changes by suggesting new forms of taxation or other ways of moving the pieces around on the game board. The board must be swept clean. Otherwise they will have successfully boondoggled us into going back under their hypnotic trance. We have to wake up!

The points made by Ron Paul in his 2012 Presidential Campaign are worth noting because he is the closest thing we've got to a viable shift in policy and he is a man of the people. Dennis Kucinich is also a man of the people. Both would be willing to support removing the rogue elements that instituted our debt-based Ponzi-scheme economy.

More important to stick with policies that aim to democratically achieve just economic and social outcomes then to decide on the eternally correct classification. Putting the correct label on it or running scared from a label just wastes energy. As soon as you show yourself putting a premium on valuing fact-based arguments, you're labeled "left." Producing typologies that claim to be above actions is inherently conservative. It's just an energy-sucking argument. In any case, people who don't like your ideas will often be quick to label you with the one they don't like regardless of the facts.

suzencr wrote:Left, right, center, all arbitrary definitions easily distorted. We just have to be clear about what it is we are doing here, what motivated us. The central theme for everyone is the extreme division between the elite 1% who control most of the wealth and the other 99% whose wealth has been extracted from them by policies that benefit the 1%. That means we focus on the the economic policies that allowed this to happen.

Exactly! "The center" is just as much a political definition as "left" and "right." We're here to GET OUR GOVERNMENT WORKING AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION. Focus on declarations 1-5! Get money and influence out of government, get regulators that will enforce fraud laws already on the books, and end the revolving door crony capitalism. Capitalism isn't the problem, it's crony capitalism rife with unchecked fraud and greed, aided by a colluding government.

William58 wrote: We're here to GET OUR GOVERNMENT WORKING AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION. Focus on declarations 1-5! Get money and influence out of government, get regulators that will enforce fraud laws already on the books, and end the revolving door crony capitalism. Capitalism isn't the problem, it's crony capitalism rife with unchecked fraud and greed, aided by a colluding government.

That is one tendency here-there are others though. Just FYI I've actually worked on a high level corporate crime investigation.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20091015/ARTICLE/910151092

http://www.sptimes.com/State/82598/Harris_backed_bill_ai.html

I'm personally of the opinion based on that experience the current laws concerning corporate fraud are woefully inadequate.

It is a tough situation. This is why I think we need a National GA and why I'm trying to request a system of Grievances, then a call for constitutional amendments.

I do want to see this movement keep a narrow focus for now- straight on anti-corruption/ anti-corporate influence. It's hard to argue for corruption. One thing we really need to go is win the language- by declaring ourselves the defenders of the free market. Maybe a heavy consumer rights aspect as well.

There's going to be differences of opinion on big-gov't/small-gov't. We're going to have to let those differences happen and tolerate them.

Alstein wrote:It is a tough situation. This is why I think we need a National GA and why I'm trying to request a system of Grievances, then a call for constitutional amendments.

I do want to see this movement keep a narrow focus for now- straight on anti-corruption/ anti-corporate influence. It's hard to argue for corruption. One thing we really need to go is win the language- by declaring ourselves the defenders of the free market. Maybe a heavy consumer rights aspect as well.

There's going to be differences of opinion on big-gov't/small-gov't. We're going to have to let those differences happen and tolerate them.

This could not have been better said!

Speaking of winning the war of Language; We need to avoid use of the word “center”. This word has been coopted by all sides; right, left, …and center. It has been transformed from a rally point into a pejorative. When it comes to any type of politics we are talking about winning a war of hearts and minds which means selling/advertising/branding. So we need to avoid the use of “center” for two main reasons:

1. The word has negative connotations for too many of the loudest and most vocal of our opposition. A word like this is something they will us to confuse and distract the people we most need to connect with. For example, “The 99% are centrists! Not Left like us. Therefore they would never support _______.” Or “ The 99% are centrists! Not Right like us. Therefore the would obviously support _______.” Now, this could be said about any phrase we choose to use, but “center” has already been preloaded into the minds of Americans. We need to claim our own Identity and state our own position before others can pigeon-hole us. We must be in control of our own branding.

2. “Center” suggests one fixed and stationary point. Something that has defined edges and borders and does not wander into the domain of Right or Left. Or worse yet, a point on a map that can be plotted, marked, and forgotten. This does not describe us. We are not all Left nor are we all Right, but certainly there are those among us who might lean towards one side or the other. However, the majority of beliefs we share and the ideas we are espousing can and should be embraced by all participants in the American Dream no matter their political leaning. Just like Alstein said, “It’s hard to argue for corruption”. The 99% is the majority right? We are not a single point. We are a broad mass. Large and going larger, we can’t be confined to a space as small as center.

So, what’s our new word gonna be?

Middle?

I like “The Middle”. We are fighting for “The Middle Class”. Our system has forgotten about huge chunks of America, mostly in “The Middle” of our country. We are in “The Middle” of a major change in our national dialog. Everybody knows what it’s like to be stuck in “The Middle”, between two things that are large and loud and squeezing you out. “The Middle” is not easily defined, it reaches from the Far Left to the Far Right. We are about reaching consensus, or “The Middle” ground.

I’m not sure if this was important enough to post here, but I felt strongly about it.

I'm clearly getting tired, because I read "The Middle" and I think of Taoism's "The Middle Way." I like thinking of it in that sense, but of course from a purely aesthetic standpoint, "middle" sounds awfully close to "muddle!"Peace,Johanna

Alstein wrote:...One thing we really need to go is win the language- by declaring ourselves the defenders of the free market. Maybe a heavy consumer rights aspect as well.

If by "win the language" you mean "say what is expected," OK. We probably have to genuflect to free enterprise. But if you mean free markets are a goal to be pursued zealously, I think you're being inconsistent logically. Laissez-faire free enterprise cannot exist with any significant consumer protection.